171–180 of 391 posts
The article is blocked behind a subscription prompt for me, but it's implemented in a silly way that's trivially by-passable. It's just some js code that checks if you've scrolled past a limit and scrolls you back to the top if so. Anything that removes js from the content defeats it, including Firefox's built-in Reader View.
This is extremely infuriating. Alexandra Elbakyan has done a huge positive contribution to human civilization, even knowing that it was putting herself at personal risk. She's just 32 years old. How can we help her? Does she need money, public support, vpns in every country? Whatever she needs, mankind is indebted to her and we should help if we can. Anybody who has ever supported their research using Sci-Hub (or Lib…
1. She will be destroyed, one way or the other. Since she is eastern European the possibilities are vastless: Russian asset/ Spy/ Dangerous Hacker/ Covert Operation/ Putin enabler, etc, etc
2. Expect hundreds of "insightful" comments on here how she was actually wrong because X, Y, Z, the same points produced by mainstream media and the establishment politicians.
3. She will be shunned, forgotten and even jailed if she puts a foot in a "wrong" country, and by that I mean 80% of earth,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's explained in the article. She thinks there is a chance to win the case in India which would be a useful publicity stunt and therefore complies with the court order.
> win the case in India which would be a useful publicity stunt It isn't just about publicity, it is also about legal precedent. In the English common law system, a judge is allowed to cite not just precedent from within their own country's legal system, but also precedent from courts in foreign common law jurisdictions. Foreign courts are not binding precedent, but a judge is allowed to say they are persuaded by the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people not do that? As far as I know, publishing in Arxiv is as simple as uploading the PDF, so I'm wondering why scientists don't do that themselves by default. Does anyone know?
Some journals rules prohibit submitting to arxiv. Researchers still want to submit their research to these journals because they are prestigious. One of the main goals of researchers is prestige (for their work to be widely read, for getting grants, for attracting grad students and post doc laborers, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people (me included) consider "intellectual property" an oxymoron. But you do not need to go that far in the extreme to be supportive of scihub and similar entities: I am a scientist. I am paid from research grants, this is what makes it possible for me to write a paper. I am also involved in reviewing papers, but that I do for free. Then I pay a journal to store my paper (the journal did not pay the paper revie…
“Didnt contribute anything but prestige”? If that’s such a minor contribution, then instead of publishing with a journal you hate, publish with an open source journal? Put your money where your mouth is.
But you can not expect this all to happen overnight, as people's scientific careers are on the line. Thankfully, it is slowly happening, with or without Scihub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to start organizing and go on the offensive: abolish copyright and patents through a constitutional amendment— http://www.breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendmen... If you’re wondering how to get the public to support it, we need to start spreading the truth. The opioid crisis kicked off by Purdue? Wouldn’t have happened without USPTO. Big tech monopolists? They get their monopoly power from IS laws…
For the US, the fast path would be to push for all Federally Funded Research to be published under a Public Domain License, no different than NASA Images, recordings, or other public agency created research. We need to extend those provisions to include all research that gets federal tax money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some journals rules prohibit submitting to arxiv. Researchers still want to submit their research to these journals because they are prestigious. One of the main goals of researchers is prestige (for their work to be widely read, for getting grants, for attracting grad students and post doc laborers, etc.).
Are there any efforts to work against journals doing that?
There is a rescue mission to save Scihub papers, you can help seeding the torrents https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/nc27fv/rescue_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people (me included) consider "intellectual property" an oxymoron. But you do not need to go that far in the extreme to be supportive of scihub and similar entities: I am a scientist. I am paid from research grants, this is what makes it possible for me to write a paper. I am also involved in reviewing papers, but that I do for free. Then I pay a journal to store my paper (the journal did not pay the paper revie…
But do you not make a decision (however rational), to grant rights for your article, as an author, and your labour as a reviewer, to the journal? I'm not a scientist, and I don't know how this works, so this is an honest question. But as an outsider, it seems that the most important intellectual property of these publishers are not articles themselves, but famous journals that scientists all over the world are so eag…
- The most prestigious journals (at least in my field) are not ridiculous prestige rackets like Elsevier. And they are (slowly) moving to open-access models. In these situations the authors of a paper are expected to pay processing fees ($1000 to $5000), but after that the paper is free to access by anyone.
- A pretty standard workaround is to put your paper on a pre-print server before even submitting to a journal. Then some draft version of the paper is trivial to access even if the peer-reviewed version is behind a paywall.
- The majority of scientists and paper writers are not tenured and do not have job security. Currently, their career growth depends on having done "good science" and regrettably the only trivially easy measure of "good science" is the prestige of journals you have published in. While pretty much all scientists agree that the system is bad, it is difficult to fight the system while your career depends on it.
- Slowly, fields are switching to open-access journals. Their prestige is growing and soon the previous bullet point will not be an issue.
- It really depends on the field as well. I rarely stumbled upon a physics paper that does not have some legal open-access option. Not so much with Engineering. So while I truly have no problem acting the way you expect me to act in your comment, my engineering colleagues would have much harder time, given that their community does not have as many prestigious open-access options or a habit of using preprint servers.
- It is frustratingly slow, but it is very visible how the "prestige" currency is indeed switching from traditional journals to open-access journals (either ones that are free and community driven or paid, but paid only on submission, not on download)